US-Iran truce deadline passes without extension deal

The United States and Iran had not confirmed an extension of their 60-day peace framework on Monday, despite reports that the two sides had agreed to prolong the arrangement as its August 17 deadline arrived. Current reporting instead indicated that the negotiating period had expired without a broader settlement.
The conflicting accounts injected fresh uncertainty into efforts to contain the conflict and restore normal commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Reports of an extension have circulated for several days, including claims that Washington and Tehran had accepted the principle of continuing the arrangement while leaving the duration unresolved.

Tehran, however, publicly rejected that version of events last week. A senior Iranian official said no negotiations on extending the 60-day period were taking place and argued that Washington first needed to fulfil commitments contained in the interim agreement. Diplomatic contacts have continued indirectly through regional intermediaries.

The discrepancy leaves the status of the framework unclear at a sensitive moment. The memorandum signed in June allowed the 60-day negotiating period to be extended by mutual consent, meaning Washington and Tehran could still agree to continue talks without designing an entirely new diplomatic structure.

Monday’s deadline nevertheless passed with no publicly announced joint extension and no final peace agreement. The two governments remain divided over implementation of several central provisions, particularly freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the US naval blockade, sanctions relief and Iran’s nuclear programme.

The June framework was intended to move the parties from temporary de-escalation towards a lasting settlement after months of warfare. It committed both sides to negotiate a final agreement within a maximum of 60 days and provided for an immediate cessation of military operations. Iran was expected to facilitate toll-free commercial passage through Hormuz while Washington began removing restrictions on Iranian ports and shipping.

Those provisions quickly became points of contention. Washington accused Tehran of failing to restore unrestricted navigation, while Iran maintained that the United States had not implemented promised measures involving its blockade, frozen assets and economic sanctions. The resulting dispute stalled substantive negotiations and produced renewed military exchanges.

The Strait of Hormuz remains at the centre of the diplomatic confrontation. Before the war, roughly one-fifth of internationally traded oil and gas moved through the waterway, making any prolonged disruption a significant risk to energy markets, shipping costs and inflation.

Iran has separately been working with Oman on an arrangement governing commercial transit through the strait. The proposed system would establish designated routes near Iranian and Omani waters and could permit vessels to travel without tolls during an interim period. Whether such an arrangement would satisfy Washington’s demands for unrestricted navigation remains uncertain.

Nuclear issues have also remained unresolved. Under the June memorandum, Tehran reaffirmed that it would not develop nuclear weapons, while the parties undertook to negotiate arrangements covering Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and future enrichment activities under international monitoring. Washington also committed itself to refraining from new sanctions while negotiations continued.

The memorandum included wider economic incentives intended to support a comprehensive settlement. These covered possible sanctions termination, access to frozen Iranian funds and a reconstruction and development programme worth at least $300 billion if a final agreement could be reached.

Those incentives have so far failed to overcome fundamental disagreements. Tehran has demanded the removal of US military and economic pressure and greater control over arrangements governing Hormuz. Washington has resisted measures that could give Iran effective authority over the strategic waterway while maintaining that Tehran must accept constraints on its nuclear activities.

Military tensions have consequently persisted alongside diplomacy. Iran’s security establishment has warned that its posture could shift from defence towards more offensive deterrence, adding pressure to mediation efforts as the negotiating window closes.